Macro and Credit - The spun-glass theory of the mind

"Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

Looking at the results stemming from the Italian referendum in conjunction with the continued gyrations in financial markets on the back of rising FX volatility thanks to "Mack the Knife" aka King Dollar + positive real US interest rates, when it came to selecting our title analogy for this week's musing, we reminded ourselves of "The spun-glass theory of the mind" which is the belief that the human organism is so fragile that minor negative events, such as criticism, rejection, or failure, are bound to cause major trauma to the system (think Brexit, Trump's election). "The spun-glass theory of the mind" is essentially not giving humans, and sometimes patients, enough credit for their resilience and ability to recover, like central banks have been doing, dealing with economic woes with their "overmedication" programs (ZIRP, QE, NIRP, etc). In 1973, the brilliant University of Minnesota clinical psychologist Paul Meehl poked fun at what he called the “spun glass theory” of the mind which is the false notion that most of us are delicate, fragile, and easily damaged creatures that need to be handled with kid gloves. Since then, many researchers have shown that most people are surprisingly resilient even in the face of extreme trauma. Economies are similar, such as the United Kingdom which showed it was more than tremendously resilient while many pundits were predicting "trauma" and disaster should Brexit happens. In similar fashion, Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book "Antifragile" showed that there's an entire class of other things that do not simply resist stress but actually grow, strengthen, or otherwise gain from unforeseen and otherwise unwelcome stimuli (Iceland). The main underlying concepts of both "The spun-glass theory of the mind" and "Antifragile" is that the majority of causal relationships are nonlinear and so are market movements (hence the relative ineffectiveness of VaR models - Value At Risk we discussed in February in our conversation "The disappearance of MS München"). Typically both have a convex section where the curve rises exponentially upward and is associated with a positive effect (antifragile) and a concave section that declines exponentially downward and has a negative effect (fragile). Think of the dose of a prescription drug. At first, as central banks increase the dose, the health benefits improve (convexity) for financial assets. But, beyond a certain dose side effects and toxicity cause harm (concavity), such as Debt-fueled economies given debt has no flexibility. Therefore highly leveraged economies cannot stand even a slowdown without risking implosion like our current situation, but we ramble again. 

How do you "hedge" in such a nonlinear world? The way to do it, we think, is to use a barbell strategy that positively captures the optionality of the variable (being long in the convex area and short in the concave area).  If indeed, we live in a nonlinear world and given correlations are less and less static and change more and more frequently, leading to larger and larger standard deviation moves such as typically going way up during downturns, it therefore eliminates Markowitz portfolio theory of diversification benefit. Just when you think your diversification will render your portfolio "antifragile" it brings instability and "fragility" to it. A barbell strategy should render your portfolio more "antifragile". Why is so? Markowitz portfolio theory causes investors to "over allocate" to risky asset classes such as "High Yield" and/or Emerging Markets and play the same crowded "beta" game. In similar fashion, "The spun-glass theory of the mind" cause central bankers to "overmedicate". One could conclude that "Overmedication" leads to "Over allocation". 

In this week's conversation we would like to look again at the importance of flows versus stocks from a macro and credit perspective, taking into account "overmedication" and "over allocation".

Synopsis:

• Macro and Credit -  It's a question of flows versus stocks
• Final chart - Could Japanese equities be antifragile in 2017?

• Macro and Credit -  It's a question of flows versus stocks

Our core thought process relating to credit and economic growth is solely based around a very important concept namely the accounting principles of "stocks" versus "flows". We have used this core principle in the past when assessing the issues plaguing Europe versus the United States as per our September 2012 conversation "Zemblanity":

"We mentioned the problem of stocks and flows and the difference between the ECB and the Fed in our conversation "The European issue of circularity", given that while the Fed has been financing "stocks" (mortgages), while the ECB is financing "flows" (deficits). We do not know when European deficits will end, until a clear reduction of the deficits is seen, therefore the ECB liabilities will have to depreciate."

Before we delve more into the nitty-gritty, it is important, we think to remind our readers of what is behind our thought process of the "stocks" versus "flows" macro approach.

We encountered previously through our readings an essential post dealing with our core concept of "stocks versus "flows" from Mr Michael Biggs and Mr Thomas Mayer on voxeu.org entitled - How central banks contributed to the financial crisis which explains precisely why both Friedman, Keynes and the central banks have been behind the curve in preventing the previous financial crisis and potentially the next one: 

"We have argued at some length in the past that because credit growth is a stock variable and domestic demand is a flow variable, the conventional approach of comparing credit growth with demand growth is flawed (see for example Biggs et al. 2010a, 2010b).To see this, assume that all spending is credit financed. Then total spending in a year would be equal to total new borrowing. Debt in any year changes by the amount of new borrowing, which means that spending is equal to the change in debt. And if spending is equal to the change in debt, then the change in spending is equal to the change in the change in debt (i.e. the second derivative of the development of debt). Spending growth, in other words, should be related not to credit growth, but rather the change in credit growth. 

We have called the change in debt (or the change in credit growth) the 'credit impulse'. The credit impulse is effectively the private sector equivalent of the fiscal impulse, and the analogy might make the reasoning clearer. The measure of fiscal policy used to estimate the impact on spending growth is not new borrowing (the budget deficit), but rather the change in new borrowing (the fiscal impulse). We argue that this is equally true for private sector credit." - Mr Michael Biggs and Mr Thomas Mayer on voxeu.org

We have always wondered in relation to the global rounds of quantitative easings the following:

"Does the end (lowering unemployment levels) justify the means (increasing M) or do the means justify the end (deflationary bust)?"

Credit dynamic is based on Growth. No growth or weak growth can lead to defaults and asset deflation. The change in credit growth is a flow variable and so is domestic and global demand!

The big failure of QE on the real economy at least in Europe has been in "impulsing" spending growth via the second derivative of the development of debt, namely the change in credit growth.

As we have argued before QE in Europe is not sufficient enough on its own to offset the lack of Aggregate Demand (AD) we think.

As a reminder, in our part 2 conversation "Availability heuristic" from September 2015, the liabilities structure of industrial countries is mainly made up of debt (they are “short debt”), in particular in Japan, the US and the UK. In contrast, the international balance sheet structure of emerging markets is typically composed of equity liabilities (“short equity”), which is the counterpart of strong FDI inflows that contributed to improve emerging markets’ external profile in the last decade. With a rising US dollar, what has been playing out is a reverse of these imbalances hence our "macro reverse osmosis" discussed again recently relating to violent rotations in flows. 

From that perspective, we read with interest Citi Research note from November entitled "How does active fund management survive in 2017?" where as well they tackle the very important point of stock versus flows:

"Is it the stock or the flow of QE that matters?

Essentially, central banks tend to think in "stock" terms

 “Reduce the quantity available to investors & prices will lift permanently”

 To us, QE flows seem very important empirically

Reduce the QE flow by just ~1/3 & markets are quite likely to fall

That makes an asset not priced to fundamentals but to policy …

… prone to non-linear reactions when perceptions of policy change" - source CITI

As we have seen in recent weeks, and as we have remarked in our conversation  "Critical threshold", higher yields leads to material fund outflows in the short-term as indicated by Bank of America Merrill Lynch Follow the Flow note from the 2nd of December entitled "Where's the money going?":

"High grade funds had their fourth week of outflows, and the third that exceeds the $1bn mark. High yield funds recorded their fifth week of outflows in a row; so far this year they have lost more than $10bn. As chart 13 below shows, the outflows this time came mainly from European and global funds, where on the other hand US high yield funds recorded an inflow.

Government bond funds had yet another outflow, the eighth in a row, reflecting rising QE-tapering risks. Money market weekly fund flows were relatively subdued recording a negative flow. Overall, fixed income funds flows remain largely negative, and over the past four weeks almost $20bn has flown out of European domiciled funds.

European equity funds flows switched aggressively to the negative side again, post a short stint of inflows. Last week the asset class had its biggest outflow in eleven weeks. Outflows so far this year are just shy of $100bn.

Global EM debt fund flows remained negative for the fourth week in a row; nonetheless we note a significant improvement in the trend, with the latest outflow being significantly smaller than that of the previous two weeks. Commodities funds also were in negative territory for a third week, as higher inflation expectations support reflation trades.
On the duration front, short-term IG funds flows remained negative for a second week. Mid-term funds had their fourth outflow in a row but riding an improving trend; while long-term funds recorded a marginal inflow." source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

Whereas central banks tend to focus their attention on "stocks", we'd rather focus ours on "flows", from a macro perspective as well as from a fund perspective. Evidently the consequences of "Mack the Knife" aka King Dollar + positive real US interest rates can also be seen in the "Great Rotation" from Europe and Emerging Markets towards the US hence validating our "macro osmosis process":

"In a normal "macro" osmosis process, the investors naturally move from an area of low solvency concentration (High Default Perceived Potential), through capital flows, to an area of high solvency concentration (Low Default Perceived Potential). The movement of the investor is driven to reduce the pressure from negative interest rates on returns by pouring capital on high yielding assets courtesy of low rates volatility and putting on significant carry trades, generating osmotic pressure and "positive asset correlations" in the process. Applying an external pressure to reverse the natural flow of capital with US rates moving back into positive real interest rates territory, thus, is reverse "macro" osmosis we think. Positive US real rates therefore lead to a hypertonic surrounding in our "macro" reverse osmosis process, therefore preventing Emerging Markets in stemming capital outflows at the moment." - Macronomics, August 2013.

As a reminder, more liquidity = greater economic instability once QE ends for Emerging Markets. Now if indeed "flows" matter, we took a keen interest in reading the impact  "Mack the Knife" has had on Emerging Markets as indicated by Bank of America Merrill Lynch in their GEMs Flow Talk note from the 1st of December 2016 entitled "Reported foreign holdings of local debt dropped 6% in November so far":

"EPFR weekly fund flows
• EPFR measures mutual funds and ETFs (AUM about $225bn)
• This week’s outflows were less than last week which was less than the prior week.
• EPFR outflows in the 3 weeks since the election were:
-4.0% for EXD
-3.7% for LDM
• Part of that is ETFs, whose outflows since the election as a % of ETF AUM were:
-8.1% for EXD
-7.3% for LDM

2013 lessons were learned well, take fast action
• Outflows have been faster than in 2013 (Chart 1)

• Largest 3 week outflow in 2013 was only -4.2% for all currency funds.

Foreign holdings of local debt sharp drop – $40bn implied
• We track $640bn of foreign holdings of local debt
• We observed 6.2% outflows for the month of November in 4 countries (India,
Indonesia, Hungary and Turkey) with foreign holdings of $107bn.
• If all countries had the same average outflow of 6.2%, then applied to the $640bn
of foreign holdings, this implies we could have had a $40bn total outflow in Nov.
Since the election – $35bn potential outflow
• We observed 5.5% outflow since the election.
• If we apply this rate to the $640bn foreign holdings, it implies a $35bn total
outflow in the few weeks since the election." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

We recently pointed out that "macro tourists" and levered carry players alike did play the second half of 2016 more aggressively hence the extension of their credit risk and duration risk leading to faster deleveraging and consequently outflows and pain inflicted. Obviously we guess that your next question is going to be how much more additional outflows could be expected particularly from the impact of a rising US dollar is having on Asia for example given capital outflows matter and matter a lot, so does a US dollar shortage as well although Stanley Fischer from the Fed thinks as of late there is no liquidity issue. Regarding this matter we read yet another Bank of America Merrill Lynch note from their Connecting Asia series entitled "Flow and flight":

"We examine two of the most pressing issues facing Asia investors in the Post-Trump election victory world.
The first, is how much capital reversal and outflow in Asia is yet to run amid USD strength, rising yield differential with the US and CNY depreciation. Thus far, some USD24bn in foreign bond and equity portfolio flows are being unwound and compares with the maximum drawdown of USD55bn during the GFC – see front page chart.

The countries that we find are at the sharp end of this outflow are Korea, India, Indonesia and Malaysia.
The second is how investors should evaluate Asia FX and rates vulnerability to the tail risk of rising trade protectionism and confrontation. The brief answer to this is that China, Korea, Taiwan and Thailand appear most vulnerable, while Indonesia and India may be the least.
Ultimately, the combination of capital outflows and rising trade protectionism discussed in this report, suggests that FX risk premiums and volatility for CNY and KRW will rise. From an FX hedging strategy perspective, we continue to recommend low delta 6M USD call, CNH puts such as our year-ahead top trade recommendation for USD/CNH 7.60 strikes.

Portfolio drawdowns – how much more to go?We highlight the maximum drawdown Asian markets have previously seen in terms of outflows. This gives us a sense of the worst case scenario as far as outflows are concerned relative to FX reserves. The bottom line is:
• The largest outflow Asia saw on a cumulative basis was ~USD 55bn during 2008. In comparison to this, Asia has seen about USD 24bn of outflows since October 2016 (see Chart 1 for cumulative outflows during other risk off periods).
• Equity outflows so far have been around 9.9bn USD since October 2016, led by. India, Taiwan and Thailand. When compared to historical drawdowns, the larger equity markets of Korea, Taiwan and India stand to lose the most, although only in Korea’s case does the worst case scenario account for a substantial portion of FX reserves (19%, see Table 1).

• Bond outflows, so far have been about 14bn USD since October 2016, with most seeing outflows of at least 2bn USD. When compared to historical drawdowns, Malaysia stands to lose the most, with the worst case scenario representing about 6.3% of current FX reserves (see Table 2).

- source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

While obviously the biggest "known unknown" lies in the foreign trade policies which will be adopted by the new US administration. As we pointed out in our last musing, measures that would restrict global trade would no doubt be bullish for gold in that particular case. For now, in relation to gold we still remain neutral.

But moving back to credit and nonlinearity, one way of "mitigating" dwindling policy support given recent talks from the ECB in tapering its stance would be to "embrace" a barbell strategy as pointed out by Citi Research note from November entitled "How does active fund management survive in 2017?":

"Barbell when repression is at risk of being wound down

Belly of the credit curve holds disproportionate amount of unpaid β" - source CITI

What would be an interesting barbell credit wise in our opinion? We would favor US credit markets obviously from a flow and currency perspective. We would go long US investment grade credit than European investment grade and even selectively long European non-financial High Yield issuers due to lower leverage than their US peers. But should you want to play the beta game from a "barbell" perspective, then again US High Yield via its derivatives US CDX High Yield, given that it is less sensitive to convexity and interest rate risks and less exposed to CCCs (10% versus 16% weight in cash index), should the risk-on environment persist on the back of favorable macro data. 

From an allocation perspective, we are already seeing once again decoupling between US credit and Europe, because, as we stated on many occasions, the Fed tackled earlier one "stocks" issues on banks balance sheet, which in effect, enabled a stronger credit income and better economic growth relative to Europe, whereas the ECB has in no way alleviated the burden of "stocks" plaguing peripheral banks in the form of nonperforming loans, therefore in no way repairing the broken credit mechanism that stills explain the on-going "japanification" process and much weaker growth prospects. To that effect, if indeed the US reflation story is playing out, then again it makes sense to "over allocate" to US credit as once again decoupling could be on the menu between both regions. This is clearly illustrated by Bank of America Merrill Lynch in their European Credit Strategist note from the 2nd of December entitled "The Italian job":

"The last month has presented something rather rare: a truly decoupled global credit market. For instance, US high-grade spreads went 2bp tighter in November, while Euro high-grade spreads went 16bp wider. And the phenomenon seeped into high-yield credit too: US spreads tightened by 24bp in November, while European spreads widened by 47bp. After the moves of the last month, headline IG spreads in Europe are now wider than US high-grade spreads out to almost 10yrs in maturity.

“Politics” has been the undoing of European credit lately. Italy heads to the polls on Sunday amid a climate of rising global populism. And ECB tapering noises have driven a pattern of rising rates and wider spreads in Europe over the last month (note, though, BofAML base case is for an €80bn QE extension until Sep-17).
Yet, even with all the political hiccups that Europe has encountered over the last 5yrs, genuine decoupling of credit markets has not been common. Chart 2 shows that there have only been 3 periods over the last 10yrs when European and US credit spreads went in different directions.

Decoupling – the new norm for ‘17

We think decoupling between US and European credit will be a lot more common in 2017 though. In fact, our US credit strategy colleagues forecast US high-grade spreads to tighten by 20bp next year. In Europe, we expect high-grade spreads to widen by 20bp.

Much of the divergence in views is simply down to technicals – which shouldn’t come as a surprise given how technicals have been the be-all and end-all of credit markets for the last few years. In the US, we expect Republican tax proposals to lead to a big drop in US high-grade net supply next year. But in Europe, we expect shareholder-friendly activity (M&A, in particular) to broaden out in 2017, and contribute to a further jump in supply. This should leave the Euro market with too many bonds and not enough buyers.

Get in quick…

In fact, lingering QE tapering noises may just coax European companies to speed up their spending and issuance plans, for fear of missing the (low-yield) boat. This means the risk of supply being front-loaded in the first half of next year, leading to some heavy indigestion for the Euro credit market.
Recall that this is not too dissimilar to what US companies did in 2014 as the Fed drew closer to their first interest rate hike. As chart 3 shows, US M&A volumes were brisk in the middle of 2014. Then, as better US data pushed yields higher, issuers moved quickly to fund the M&A backlog, leading to some big months of US high-grade supply in September and November 2014.
This also caused a big decoupling in credit markets: US high-grade spreads widened by almost 40bp in the second half of 2014, while European high-grade spreads went slightly tighter. We fear the same bad technicals could be at work in Europe next year if companies rush to issue ahead of any potential QE tapering." - Bank of America Merrill Lynch

If indeed we get this "reflationary" case playing out, then again we might have a situation where US credit continues to outperform European credit in 2017.

Going forward, when it comes to following a potential deterioration in US High Yield we encourage you to keep an eye on a possible flattening of the CDX HY curve, being the derivatives proxy for the US High Yield market. As per Credit Market Analysis (CMA) latest chart, it is worth following the trend to see if indeed the CDX HY series 27 will be getting flatter as we move towards 2017. We noticed that one year protection has started to move upwards albeit very slowly, while it is yet a meaningful move for the moment contrary to what we had back in November last year where 1 year was only 50 bps apart from 3 year, you should keep an eye on the shape of the curve:

- source Credit Market Analysis

Right now, it is hard to be as sanguine as we were in November regarding US High Yield given at the time of the fast flattening movement we were seeing at the end of 2015. We continue to see a risk-on environment for the time being, although as we pointed out last week when discussing credit conditions in the US for Commercial Real Estate, it does appears to us that some segments including our CCC credit canary are already experiencing tightening financial conditions. The most important indicator to track, risk wise is "Mack the Knife" aka King Dollar + positive real US interest rates. 

Finally for our final chart and if the "spun-glass theory of the mind" is correct, then indeed we think if the US dollar continues to shine, then it makes sense to "over allocate" to Japan given earnings are higher there.

• Final chart - Could Japanese equities be antifragile in 2017?

While the risk-on mode is still prevailing thanks to the strong beliefs in the reflation story playing out, from an equity perspective, corporate earnings and payouts remain the principal drivers of equity returns. To that extent, our final chart comes from Barclays Global equity and cross-asset strategy note from the 28th of November entitled "Reassessing the rotations" and displays earnings in Japan relative to the US and Europe:

- source Barclays

While it remains to be seen how long the "reflationary story" continues to play out, for now it is indeed "risk-on", but no doubt there are many political events lining up in 2017 that could put a spanner in the works. One thing is clear to us though, is that when it comes to markets commentators and some members of the sell-side, 2016 has proven with both Brexit and the US election that the spun-glass theory of the mind is alive and well...

"Success breeds complacency. Complacency breeds failure. Only the paranoid survive." -  Andy Grove, former CEO of Intel.

Stay tuned!

Macro and Credit - An Extraordinary Dislocation

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." -  Socrates

Watching with interest our barbell strategy (long gold/gold miners - long US long bonds) getting trounced, in conjunction with the infamous "flash crash" of the British pound, with terrible exports data coming from Asia as of late somewhat validating our fears expressed in our most recent post made us wander towards a cinematographic analogy for our chosen title this time around. "An Extraordinary Dislocation" is a short movie dating from 1901 by French illusionist and film director Georges Méliès famous for leading many technical and narrative developments in the earliest days of cinema. Georges Méliès was a prolific innovator in the use of special effects such our central bankers of today, popularizing such techniques as substitution splices, multiple exposures, time-lapse photography, dissolves, and hand-painted color. He was also the first filmmaker to use storyboards. Georges Méliès directed over 500 films between 1896 and 1913, ranging in length from one to forty minutes. In our case our title refers to a movie lasting a mere 2 minutes as per the linked provided above to the short movie "An Extraordinary Dislocation". In subject matter, these films are often similar to the magic theatre shows that Méliès had been doing, containing "tricks" and impossible events, such as objects disappearing or changing size such as the balance sheets of central banks. While most of his early special effects films were essentially devoid of plot, the special effects were used only to show what was possible (such as QE, TWIST, NIRP and other central banks tricks), rather than enhance the overall narrative or in the case of "The Cult of the Supreme Beings" aka central bankers, the overall situation of the global economy as a whole, slowly but surely falling when it comes to assessing the true global trade situation, particularly in Asia.

While one might wonder why we chose this particular short movie, we would like to provide some explanations before we move on to the nitty-gritty of our conversation. "An Extraordinary Dislocation" is probably the funniest of all mystical pictures yet produced by Georges Méliès. In this picture several body parts of a dancing clown float away from his body and come back again. In similar fashion as we have been warning in numerous conversations and in particular our February conversation "The disappearance of MS München" about the rising risk of large standard deviations moves thanks to rising cross-asset correlations due to central banks meddling with the most important allocation signal namely interest rates. The most recent "Extraordinary Dislocation" of the British pound is yet another reminder of the risk induced by repressed volatility. When it comes to dislocations and dancing clowns such as our central bankers of today, rest assured that many more extraordinary dislocations will continue to appear from nowhere such as "rogue waves" such as the recent sell-off in the British pound. While rogue waves have long been a fascination of ours as per our February musing, what "The Cult of the Supreme Beings" aka central bankers fail to grasp in their numerous "wealth effect" experiences is the Wicksellian Differential. 

Before we start our usual Macro and Credit musing we would like as a reminder to discuss Wicksell Differential and the credit cycle (linked to the leverage cycle). Wicksell argued in his 1898 book Interest and Prices that the equilibrium of a credit economy could be ascertained by comparing the money rate of interest to the natural rate of interest.  This simply equates to comparing the cost of capital with the return on capital. In economies where the natural rate is higher than the money rate, credit growth will drive a positive disequilibrium in an economy. When the natural rate of interest is lower than the money rate which is the case today (rising Libor), the demand for credit dries up (our CCC credit canary are being shut out of credit markets) leading to a negative disequilibrium and capital destruction eventually. In a credit based global macro world like ours, the Wicksellian Differential provides a better alternative estimation of disequilibrium than the more standard Taylor Rule approach of our central bankers. At the Bank for International Settlements since 1987, Claudio Borio and his colleague Philip Lowe wrote in 2002 a very interesting paper entitled “Asset prices, Financial and Monetary Stability: Exploring the Nexus”, BIS Working Papers, n. 114. In this paper the authors made some very important points that are worth reminding ourselves today:

"Widespread financial distress typically arises from the unwinding of financial imbalances that build up disguised by benign economic conditions […] Booms and busts in asset prices […] are just one of a richer set of symptoms […] Other common signs include rapid credit expansion, and, often, above-average capital accumulation" - source BIS

So when we hear Janet Yellen at the Fed saying the following:

 "Asset values aren’t out of line with historical norms." -Janet Yellen, 21st of September 2016

We reminded ourselves that Wicksell used just the housing sector to illustrate his theory. Excess lending dear Mrs Yellen, always lead to "overinvestment". Just because the Taylor Rule used by the Fed doesn't include asset prices, it doesn't mean in our book that asset values are not out of line of historical norms.

Why is the Wicksellian Differential so important when it comes to asset allocation? Either profits increase due to an increase in the return of capital and/or a fall in the cost of capital (buybacks funded by a credit binge). This is clearly reminded by Credit Capital Advisors' note from July 2012 entitled "Navigating the business cycle: A new approach to asset allocation":

"The calculation of the Wicksellian Differential is however an ex-post measure, so is unhelpful for investors to use as an investment trigger, hence an ex-ante model needs to be constructed based on the underlying drivers of growth in the Wicksellian Differential, which is of course leverage. However, an ever-increasing amount of leverage is clearly unsustainable and will cause expectations to shift at some point, resulting in a period of deleveraging and falling profits. As a result, an investment trigger can be set up based on the dynamic relationship between leverage ratios and the rate of profit, which requires constant recalibration as new data is made available.

The relationship between each leverage ratio and the rate of profit is unique and dynamic through time. For example, the slowdown and fall in the consumer leverage ratio caused the Wicksellian Differential to reverse between 1990 and 1992. Furthermore, during the tech bubble between 1996 and 1999, corporate leverage fell followed by consumer leverage, causing the rate of profit to fall. This highlights that there was no real basis for rising equity returns during the tech bubble as the rate of profit growth was falling. Thus the dotcom bubble ought to be seen as akin to John Law’s South Sea bubble, which was purely based on a rather large misconception. The extent of the credit bubble leading up to the recent financial crisis is highlighted by the substantial rise in consumer leverage, the rate of which began falling at the end of 2006, highlighting the downturn in the rate of profit growth in 2007, and thus a shift to bonds. Finally consumer leverage rose again in 2009, signaling a recovery in profits, although the recovery was short-lived. In 2011 the trend fell again, and the 2012 signal highlights a continuing slowdown in the underlying trend of profit growth. 

There are of course other factors that impact profits, such as significant changes in the general price level and in output per worker, as well as other known variables such as the tax rate; however, the most important driver with respect to the turning points is the realisation that a period of credit expansion has become unsustainable, leading to changing expectations." - source Credit Capital Advisors, July 2012

And of course dear readers, we have long been warning that the credit cycle was slowly but surely turning thanks to credit "overmedication". End of our Wicksellian Differential parenthesis.

In this week's conversation, while credit markets are still strongly technically driven thanks to central bank competing with credit investors, we would like to look at Japan's latest bending the curve experiment as well as rising inflation expectations leading to some pundits asking themselves about the potential return of the much dreaded "stagflation" word.

Synopsis:

• Macro and Credit - Can the Bank of Japan bend the yield curve?
• Macro and Credit  - Is reflation around the corner and leading to stagflation?
• Final chart: Balance sheets are out of sync with the economy

• Macro and Credit - Can the Bank of Japan bend the yield curve?

While following the latest market gyrations and various "sucker punches" delivered to the investing crowd, the latest "The Cult of the Supreme Beings" experiment coming from the Bank of Japan picked up our interest given the changes in policy target from quantity to interest rates, in their latest "reflationary/inflationary" attempt. On this subject we read with interest Bank of America Merrill Lynch Liquid Insight latest note from the 14th of October 2016 entitled "Will yield curve control work in Japan?":

"BoJ switches policy target from quantity to interest rates; what about prices?

At its September Monetary Policy Meeting (MPM), the BoJ carried out its comprehensive assessment and introduced QQE with yield curve control. The new policy consists of: (1) yield curve control, by which the BoJ will manipulate short- and long-term yields; and (2) an overshoot commitment, whereby the BoJ pledges to keep expanding the monetary base until CPI inflation exceeds and stays stably above 2% YoY. The sustainability of huge JGB purchase operations totaling ¥80tn annually caused some concern, and the risk that yields would decline without limit prompted the BoJ to switch its target from quantity to interest rates and thereby make purchase operations more flexible. On the price side, we see some evidence that inflation is trending downward again, such as the core CPI’s dip into year-on-year negative territory (Chart of the day).

The BoJ’s strengthened commitment to 2% inflation runs the risk of postponing the exit from monetary easing until even further in the future. In this note, we consider the BoJ’s new monetary policy, including the extent to which it can contribute to raising prices.

Yield curve control – the balancing act

The BoJ’s “yield curve control” means that a rate of -0.1% will be applied as the short-term rate to policy-rate balances in current accounts held at the BoJ. For the long-term rate, the BoJ will conduct long-term JGB purchase operations in such a way that the 10yr yield stays at about 0%. At the same time, the BoJ aims to maintain the pace of annual JGB purchase operations at the current ¥80tn while guiding interest rates, so doubts remain about the simultaneous use of yield curve control and quantity. The BoJ maintains that yield curve control is at the center of its new framework.

Indeed, as the 10yr yield approached -0.1%, the BoJ reduced purchase operations on 30 September. This reminded market participants that -0.1% was the yield’s lower limit. The purchasing cutback was small, but in light of the possibility that operations could be reduced again, the 10yr JGB will probably be seen as difficult to buy the next time its yield approaches -0.1%. Given the small size of the purchasing cutback, it might appear that tight supply-demand is likely to push the yield below -0.1% again, but the BoJ first indicated that the target yield level was 0% and then showed its intention by reducing purchase operations. If the 10yr yield approaches -0.1% again, market participants will likely start to expect another purchasing cutback. The BoJ has declared that it will control short- and long-term rates, so with the short-term rate set at -0.1%, it is difficult to envision the BoJ doing nothing if the 10yr yield sinks below that level. Therefore, the BoJ might be able to keep the 10yr yield at about 0% without reducing purchase operations very much.

The BoJ’s Summary of Opinions at the Monetary Policy Meeting (20-21 September), released on 30 September, says: “It is uncertain whether the pace of JGB purchases will slow down as intended and the sustainability of monetary easing consequently improve under yield curve control.” The goal of slowing JGB purchases is clearly mentioned, and the BoJ’s stance on “quantity” and “policy sustainability” does not appear to be settled. The BoJ is probably wary of reducing quantity only to see the yen strengthen or stocks weaken. Nevertheless, we believe it will gradually move in the direction of reducing quantity.

In any case, it would be difficult to hold the 10yr JGB yield down to 0% without purchase operations, but the BoJ itself will have to continue searching for the right amount of purchases to do the job. Even if the BoJ shifts entirely to an interest rate target, there is no guarantee that it can control the yield curve, so uncertainty would be high. The important point is how fast the BoJ can shift to an interest rate target. The BoJ for now seems to be targeting the shape of the yield curve at the time of the September MPM, so yield targets are 0% for the 10yr yield, 0.4% for the 20yr yield and 0.5% for the 30yr yield (Rates forecast: Attention on BoJ operations when yields decline).

Reflation credibility of the new framework

History shows that when prices and the economy overheat, rate hikes can be deployed to exert some control. But is it possible at normal times, in the absence of a financial or liquidity crisis, to boost prices by making monetary policy more accommodative? At this point in Japan, the effort is not going very well. In general, QE by purchasing T-Bills with 0% interest rates is not thought to be effective. Because highly liquid T-Bills with 0% interest rates have about the same value as cash, and exchanging one for the other has almost no economic effect. On the other hand, expanding the monetary base by purchasing long-term JGBs has a strong experimental aspect. Although long-term JGBs have low yields and high liquidity, they are not equivalent to cash. The BoJ introduced QQE in April 2013, and the yen’s sharp depreciation and rise of prices made the policy look effective. After three and a half years, however, inflation is heading downward again, while there was some impact from the decline in oil prices.
Since the beginning of the Abe administration at end-2012, it is true that the yen has weakened owing to a certain sense of inflation expectation. Another factor behind the yen’s depreciation is that the then Federal Reserve Board (FRB) Chairman Ben Bernanke mentioned tapering in May 2013, and tapering began in December of that year. From then until rate hikes actually began in December 2015, the US appeared to approve of some USD appreciation. In 2008 and later, amid the financial crisis that stemmed from the US subprime loan crisis and the Greek debt crisis, the FRB and the European Central Bank (ECB) implemented a variety of operations, including asset purchases. Their contribution to reducing risk premiums, raising asset prices and stabilizing the financial system helped to raise expectations of the BoJ’s QQE.

Immediately after QQE was deployed, prices steadily rose, owing in part to the weak yen effect, but the inflation trend turned downward with the decline of oil prices beginning in summer 2014. This was unfortunate for the BoJ, but even though the year-on-year decline in oil prices has shrunk considerably, inflation remains low (Chart 1).

Even the CPI inflation excluding energy prices is trending lower, suggesting that this may be the effect of the yen’s recent strength. Although the yen’s depreciation from 2013 did help to boost prices, that effect has peaked out because of the yen’s appreciation this year. The forex rate affects prices with a lag of six months to one year, so forex will be a price-lowering factor for the time being (Chart 2).

Based on the results of the September MPM, the possibility of JGB purchasing cutbacks gave rise to concern that the yen would strengthen further. Ironically, or perhaps fortunately, expectations of US rate hikes rose and this may have weakened the yen instead.

In the end, the major determinant of inflation will be the extent to which tighter labor market conditions push up wages. In 2014, when the weak yen and a consumption tax rate hike raised prices, wages did not see a commensurate rise, and as a result, consumption was sluggish. According to the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare’s Monthly Labor Survey, total cash earnings (nominal wages) climbed 1.2% YoY in July. However, scheduled cash earnings (basic wages, etc.) rose only 0.3%, while bonuses and other special payments boosted the overall figure. In August, total cash earnings declined 0.1%, their first downturn in three months, but scheduled cash earnings were up 0.5%. If the BoJ is aiming for 2% inflation, wage hikes are still insufficient, but the unemployment rate has declined to about 3% and companies facing labor shortages have started hiring more full-time workers, including permanent employees. Favorable changes like these are starting to be seen in the labor market (Chart 3).

The corporate sector’s retained earnings have hit a record high, while the labor share is declining, so there is plenty of room for improvement (Chart 4).

Price-lowering pressure from the strong yen will continue for a time, but we expect to see modest price rises over the medium to long term. However, is it possible for monetary easing to cause sustained inflation? We cannot give a definite answer, but let us consider this matter by looking back on the BoJ’s monetary policy and its ripple effect.

Effect of quantitative expansion

Under the BoJ’s QQE, asset prices rose strongly starting in 2013. Normally stock and JGB prices have a negative correlation with one another, but at that time they had a positive correlation and rose together (Chart 5).

That relation seems to have broken down since the start of this year, but for at least three years asset prices rose in a way not normally seen. The problem is that rising asset prices were not reflected in general prices. This was likely resulting from the fact that the BoJ expanded the monetary base at a rapid rate, but the expansion of money stock was limited (Chart 6).

To put it another way, even though the monetary base expanded, bank lending increased only slightly. Since 2000, Japan’s monetary environment has been accommodative, and bank deposits have continually increased, but bank lending has not. To cover the deposit-loan gap, domestic banks increased investment in JGBs (Chart 7). 

Therefore, even when the banks’ JGB holdings were exchanged for cash under QQE, the lending situation of banks did not greatly change. The asset composition of domestic banks shows that in the three years after QQE started, the share of bank assets in JGBs declined, while the share in cash increased by a similar percentage. Other asset classes did not change much (Chart 8).

Although the absolute amount of lending did increase, it mainly went into real estate-related projects. Lending growth to manufacturers for capital goods was limited. Even though the monetary base expanded, the amount of funds circulating in the real economy (money stock) did not change much, so the kinds of price increases seen in assets were not seen in general prices.

Effect of negative interest rates

At the January 2016 MPM, the BoJ applied a negative interest rate of -0.1% to a portion of current accounts held at the BoJ. It introduced a three-tiered structure for current accounts and other measures to avoid negative impact on banks, which until then had cooperated with QQE. In the JGB market, however, about three years of JGB purchase operations had tightened the supply-demand relationship, causing yields to decline sharply, the yield curve to flatten, and arousing concern about pressure on the earnings of financial institutions (Super long JGB supply-demand balance). In Europe, which introduced negative interest rates before Japan, the side effect of reduced bank margins was conspicuous, but it did not lead to much of an increase in lending to corporations, the intended benefit. With interest rates on deposits remaining positive, loan rates could only be lowered to a certain extent without eating up the margins. In particular, Japan has already experienced a long period of low interest rate policy, and interest rates on loans are already low, so further downside room is limited (Chart 9).

In Japan, with its high ratio of indirect financing, the effect on the real economy is only slight. Moreover Danish banks responded to the decline of bank margins by raising service charges on mortgages and other products. According to a 7 October Nikkei Shimbun article, Japanese banks are also considering higher service charges on mortgages. This will have a de facto monetary tightening effect. However, a low-interest rate environment is generally positive for corporate funding. Amid the limited decline of interest rates on loans, corporate bond issuance is picking up in Europe. In Japan, the corporate bond market did not expand, partly because Japanese companies have large reserves, but issuance did swell this summer (Japan Credit Monthly, September 2016). As the yield curve flattened, issuance increased at maturities over 10yr (Chart 10).

The wider variety of corporate funding alternatives can be described as a benefit, but the BoJ’s monetary policy change might also bring about a change in this trend. As the BoJ points out, the costs and benefits of policies must be watched.

Conclusion

With the April 2013 introduction of QQE, called a monetary “bazooka” at the time, the BoJ tried to work on people’s expectations and raise CPI inflation to 2% within two years, but the attempt failed (Looking back at three years of QQE). In the absence of any clear reason why expansion of the monetary base should lead to a higher inflation rate, the BoJ’s action was even called a social experiment. Monetary policy is a crucial means of stabilizing prices and the financial system. When the economy overheats, for example, it can be treated with a rate hike, and when liquidity dries up in a financial crisis, the central bank can supply liquidity. Although there were a number of different factors that make it difficult to blame the failure solely on the BoJ, it has proven very difficult to raise prices by monetary policy alone in normal times.

Liquidity is already adequate owing to Japan’s extended monetary easing. It is so adequate, in fact, that banks have trouble finding worthwhile investments for their funds. With the supply of even more funds beyond this point, the costs of this policy are starting to become more pronounced than the benefits. In early July, the 20yr JGB yield dipped into negative territory, a sign of low yields overall and a very flat curve. As the cost of funding foreign currency rose, the possibility arose that domestic investors would have nowhere to invest. “The lower the better” is not a phrase that applies to interest rates. Excessive monetary easing by the central bank can inadvertently rob the market of low-risk assets and heighten financial system risk. The G20 finance ministers and central bank governors have also expressed concern about the side effects of prolonged monetary easing and extremely low interest rates environment.

The increasingly easy monetary policy favored by nearly everyone until recently might now gradually change direction on a global basis. In future, a monetary policy that more closely matches the pace of real economy’s growth might be sought, as well as a policy that is more sustainable. On that point, we believe the BoJ’s switch from quantity to an interest rate target is effective, but it will raise new questions, what the appropriate shape of the yield curve is and whether that will lead to inflation." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

The same pattern in Europe and Japan is happening, namely that the new money flows downhill where the fun is: to the bond market. Bond speculators are having a field day and now credit speculators are joining the party with both hands even in Japan.

From our perspective, there are a couple of points we would like to make relative to Bank of America Merrill Lynch's comments. First of all we believe that the bending of the curve will be ineffective in triggering the much desired inflation the Bank of Japan is seeking given as we indicated before when commenting on the "Japanification of Europe, both Europe and Japan's deflationary headwinds are stemming from poor demographics. In terms of Wicksellian Differential and real estate and Japan, we note with interest that the prognosis for Japanese real estate is some more pain ahead as NIRP is translating into banks trying to recoup some profitability through higher mortgage rates as indicated by Bloomberg in their article from the 13th of October entitled "Tokyo Condo Prices May Fall 20%, Deutsche says":

"The Bank of Japan’s shift to controlling bond yields is driving up mortgage rates, prompting Deutsche Bank AG to predict Tokyo apartment prices may fall 20 percent or more by 2018.
The BOJ’s negative-rate policy was already hurting buyer sentiment, and its move to boost longer-term yields is a double-blow to the industry, according to Yoji Otani, a real estate analyst at Deutsche Bank in Tokyo. The 35-year fixed mortgage rate has climbed for two straight months after touching a record low of 0.9 percent in August, and sales of new condominiums in Tokyo this year have fallen to the lowest since the nation’s property bubble collapse in the early 1990s." - source Bloomberg

Second point, the impact on real estate prices and rising mortgages thanks to very aggressive monetary policies can be as well ascertained in Switzerland. Of course when it comes to "capital destruction" and Wicksellian Differential, you can rest assured that once prices go down in "bubbly" real estate markets, it leaves people in negative equity territory for an extended period of time. The most interesting comment from the Bloomberg article relative to Bank of America Merrill Lynch's conclusion where they think the Bank of Japan will be successful in "bending the yield curve" (which we don't think they will!) is as follows from Yoji Otani, a real estate analyst at Deutsche Bank in Tokyo:

"The one positive thing about negative rates was that it lowered borrowing costs, and now that is going to end," said Otani, who expects prices to fall 20 percent to 30 percent by the end of 2018. "The collapse of this silent bubble has begun."
"The BOJ is operating a negative-rate policy but it is trying to push up long-term yields, which totally lacks sense,” he said. “There’s a contradiction." - source Bloomberg

You can rest assured that this new NIRP trick is going to blow in the face of "The Cult of the Supreme Beings" aka central bankers members from the Bank of Japan and lead to some additional "Extraordinary Dislocation". As a reminder from our previous conversation where we quoted our April article "Shrugging Atlas" in which we discussed Japan and the kite string theory:

"That is the very difficult situation that lies with "easy policy", there is an easy way in, but no easy way out. So as goes the kite string theory, you can control a kite by pulling its string, but not pushing it. Once you reach the ZLB and implement NIRP on top of QE, it seems to us monetary policies become ineffective." - source Macronomics, April 2016

If indeed real estate turns "South" in Japan then banks will have to increase credit provisions which de facto will reduce credit availability and therefore credit impulse and economic growth. On top of that if indeed Japanese households fall into negative equity thanks to their real estate exposure then again, as a textbook Richard Koo explanation, these households will have no other choice but to reduce their spending and borrowing as they try to repair their balance sheet. Yet another potential for Richard Koo's Balance Sheet Recession theory playing out again in Japan we think.

As well as having a contradictory approach, the Bank of Japan has played the NIRP game given it's mostly has we have explained before a currency play, but then again, anchoring the 10 year Japanese Government Bond around the 0% threshold is conditional of USD/JPY evolution. Furthermore, the Bank of Japan is playing a very difficult balancing act. This is clearly indicated by Nomura in their Japan Navigator note number 691 from the 10th of October entitled "Diminishing room for JGB rates to fall further":

"Conditions for 10yr rates to become positive

We believe 10yr yields are unlikely to reach positive levels unless, as mentioned above, the BOJ allows the pace of its JGB purchases to fall further below its target of “about JPY80trn” in annual absorption, in which case the market would determine that the Bank is unlikely to ease further.
Once expectations of further BOJ easing fade, we believe negative 10yr JGB yields would no longer attract short-term long traders, but only purchases from investors looking to buy for holding until maturity. In this case, we believe 10yr rates would trade above levels that are determined by bank deposit rates and deposit insurance premiums. This is not included in our base case for FY16, but we believe this scenario may materialize in H1 FY17, as the BOJ’s JGB purchases would fall more substantially below its target.
If the BOJ continues buying JGBs at the current pace, it would absorb a net JPY75trn in FY16. However, if the current pace continues beyond end-FY16, it would absorb only a net JPY72trn in FY17, in which case the BOJ would have to either abandon its quantitative target or allow greater flexibility (adopting a proviso) from next spring, in our view.

At that point, if the Fed is discussing another hike (following a hike in December), we would expect the risk of a strong JPY to have declined, but otherwise the BOJ could cut rates further to alleviate investor concerns over QQE tapering." - source Nomura

It appears therefore that further reaction from the Bank of Japan is conditional on the Fed's action in December. What is a cause for concern in the footsteps of our previous conversation relating to our US dollar strengthening fears is that if indeed USD funding tightens further, then USD/JPY basis widens even more which means in effect that strong buyers such as lifers will continue their purchase of US bonds without any FX hedging due to the rising cost. This particular point is worth noting and was highlighted by UBS in their recent Global Credit Comment from the 12th of October entitled "What is the consensus view? And where could it be wrong?":

"UK/Europe:

Hedging FX exposure was brought up in a majority of client meetings, as widening basis swaps reduce the relative yield advantage of US credit. We found that clients are largely hedging FX exposure via short-dated swaps (3 months). But interestingly, a rising fraction noted they are no longer hedging as the costs become less economical. In continental Europe, where negative rate pressures are particularly severe, the rotation into anything with yield is driven largely by institutional pressures (rather than fundamental credit assessments). There are simply few other investment alternatives in a market structure where managers must invest incoming flows and coupon/maturity proceeds. A number of investors reported more recent interest in longer-dated US IG – and a majority of investors continue to report holding a long position in EU financials.

Among the bigger themes, UK and European clients were focused on the outlook for central bank policy, political fragmentation in Europe, the foreign demand for global credit, the state of the US credit cycle3 and US election outcomes. On risks ahead clients were quick to cite many of the known unknowns ahead: Brexit, the Italian Referendum, the December FOMC meeting and other core European elections next year. Based on our discussions, we believe the larger and more underpriced risk scenarios for European credit investors would include: 1) timing and pace of ECB tapering of CSPP, 2) rising systemic risks stemming from idiosyncratic stress among European banks, and 3) significant spread widening in US credit spreads. Note that none of these outcomes are our base case." - source UBS

Whereas there is indeed some clear sign of global US dollar shortage increasingly indicated by widening basis swaps, the yield differential still favor having US credit exposure, even long dated to Investment Grade as we feel more and more incline to look for quality rather than chasing yield in US High Yield given the late stage of the current credit cycle and significant build up in leverage with week CAPEX, poor EBITDA and rising defaults. The next US Senior Loan Office Surveys (SLOs) will be paramount for the technical bid in credit and in particular US High Yield to continue we think.

For our second point, we would like to steer towards reflationary expectations and the much commented fears of a return of "stagflation".

• Macro and Credit  - Is reflation around the corner and leading to stagflation?

Back in March 2016 in our conversation "Unobtainium" we pointed out that the time that US TIPS were more compelling than UK linkers thanks to their deflation floor, but given the very significant performance of UK linkers thanks to Brexit and the British pound de facto devaluation, we should have noted what the UK linkers market was telling us at the time, namely that further depreciation of the British pound was coming hence the rise of inflationary expectations and the significant performance of this asset class in particular during the month of August.

Our renewed interest in rising expectations can be tracked down from our comments from our March 2016 conversation:

"A very interesting 2015 paper by the Bank of Israel ( (Sussman, N and O Zohar 2015, “Oil prices, inflation expectations, and monetary policy”, Bank of Israel DP092015.) indicates that since the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008, a 10% change in oil prices moves 5Y5Y expected inflation by nearly 0.1% in the US and 0.05% in the Euro area. Therefore, given the recent significant surge in oil prices towards the $40 mark, we do not think it is such a surprise to see a rise in inflation expectations in that context. This latest rise in inflation expectations could after all be transitory as well as the sudden rise in oil prices, particularly in the light of the tight relationship between the US dollar and oil prices. We think that the latest dovish stance of the Fed all has to do with their concerns relating to the "velocity" of the US dollar and the "unintended consequences" a too rapid rise of the "Greenback" could have on Emerging Markets (EM)." - source Macronomics, March 2016

Many pundits have noticed the current reflationary trend particularly in the 10 year breakeven rate in the US over the past couple of weeks. This trend is as well highlighted in Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Securitization Weekly Overview entitled "Reflation takes flight" from the 7th of October:

"This week, we take note of the steady rise in the 10yr breakeven rate over the past few weeks, moving from 1.50% on September 20 to 1.66% as of Friday (October 6) morning, post-September payrolls. Using our breakeven inflation rate valuation framework, we consider what a 2% breakeven rate might mean for securitized products and competing sectors. We choose 2% since we think it is a reasonable target level to assume: in other words, although the Fed downplays the importance of market-based inflation expectations, we think it is likely an implicit target anyway.

Chart 1 and Chart 2 show two different longer term views of the 10yr breakeven inflation rate. We think they both tell us that the recent rise in the breakeven rate is very important and that the chances of continuing to move higher, possibly reaching 2% over the next 3-6 months, are good. At long last, central bank reflationary policies might actually be working.

Chart 1 shows that the recent rise in the breakeven rate has pushed the level through the upper end of the downward trend channel that has persisted since taper talk in 2013. Chart 2, which looks at 30-, 40-, and 50-week moving averages along with the weekly level, suggests that, in recent weeks, the trend may finally have shifted from downward to upward. The weekly reading has crossed through all the moving averages to the upside, and for now, the 30-week moving average is moving higher.

We’re as skeptical about the inflation risk as most, but the view in these charts tells us that, finally, the tide may have shifted in recent weeks towards higher inflation expectations. We’ll consider our breakeven valuation framework in a moment but first we consider what rising inflation expectations means for Fed rate hike potential.

Chart 3 compares the 10yr breakeven rate with the probability that there is at least one rate hike by December 2016; the probability currently stands at 64%.

In recent months, they have moved in similar directions, although not always at the exact same time. Over the past month, since September 2, the 10yr breakeven rate has risen by roughly 16 basis points, from 1.48% to 1.64%. If the same increase applies over the next two  months, bringing the breakeven inflation rate to 1.96%, we are confident the Fed would have hiked at least once by the December meeting (as BofAML economists expect); moreover, based on Chart 3, it also seems possible that the market probability of such a hike would be approaching 100%. In other words, the Fed would have reached a perfect position to hike: the market is fully expecting it, and would not react adversely to the hike.

It should be recognized that there is a chicken-and-egg situation here: if the rate hike probability jumped quickly to 100%, say over a day, the breakeven inflation rate would likely quickly reverse the recent rising trend; but if both gradually move higher, in line with the Fed’s gradualist approach, reaching the end state on both the rate hike and the inflation expectation becomes more achievable. The recent breakeven trend reversal to the upside, seen in Chart 1 and Chart 2, makes us believe the latter scenario is the higher probability scenario." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

The trajectory for inflation expectations and rising 10 year US breakevens in our book is clearly being driven by the change in oil prices, that simple. We have yet to meaningful wage inflation which would entice us to validate the recovery mantra of some sell-side pundits. Nonetheless wages are a backward looking indicator of inflation pressure.

Whereas the rise in US inflation has put indeed some pressure relative to the US yield curve, in effect pushing the US 10 year towards 1.80 % yield level, we do not have such a sanguine approach for the long end looking at the recent downward revision by the Atlanta Fed from their GDPNow latest forecast for 1.9 % on October 14th for the Third Quarter. We therefore believe we are once again approaching compelling levels for US long dated treasury and we will be monitoring the situation closely. As a reminder, when it comes to our contrarian stance in relation to our "long duration" fondness it is fairly simple to explain:

"Government bonds are always correlated to nominal GDP growth, regardless if you look at it using "old GDP data" or "new GDP data." So, if indeed GDP growth will continue to lag, then you should not expect yields to rise anytime soon making our US long bonds exposure still compelling regardless of what some sell-side pundits are telling you."

We hope, at some point, this will become "Common knowledge" and that some sell-side pundits will stop defying this simple yet compelling "Wicksellian" logic which in terms of allocation can prevent  "Extraordinary Dislocation" when eventually equities will correct.

When it comes to the stagflationary fears out there, they seem to us relatively premature given the impact rising oil prices have had on inflation expectations. What seems to us much more worrying from a potential bear market perspective is the velocity in the surge in oil prices which in the past have always preceded significant corrections in stock markets. As past history has shown, what matters is the velocity of the increase in the oil prices, given that a price appreciation greater than 100% to the "Real Price of Oil" has been a leading indicator for every US recession over the past 40 years. This, dear friends is based on facts, not conjecture.

Finally, for our final chart, and given we highlighted the importance of leverage when looking at Wicksellian Differential, we think it is important to note the growing divergence between corporate balance sheets with the economy as the credit cycle moves towards the last inning.

• Final chart: Balance sheets are out of sync with the economy

While much of the performance of US equities has been driven to a large extent by multiple expansion thanks to buybacks funded by cheap credit, it is worth noting that eventually, what matters in a credit cycle at a late stage is the level of leverage in the system from a Wicksellian perspective. In relation to this statement we would like to point towards Bank of America Merrill Lynch's chart from their Credit Market Strategist note from the 14th of October entitled "3Q=stabilizing, 4Q=improving fundamentals" where they show that corporate balance sheets are at much later stage in the cycle:

"Balance sheets are out of sync with the economy

As we have argued (see: Monthly HG Market Review: June ’16: Brexit and the decline in yields 01 July 2016 ). due to unprecedented monetary policy easing globally, in response to the challenges emerging from and financial crisis and sovereign crises, corporate balance sheets are at a much later stage in the cycle (Figure 17). 

This disconnect between the economic cycle and corporate balance sheets is highly unusual and perhaps never seen before. But these times are indeed highly unusual. As the economy moves through the last half of its cycle we thus expect that corporate balance sheets improve a bit over the coming years - although companies are not going to undergo a traditional deleveraging cycle. Then when the economy eventually goes into recession we should see the traditional spike in corporate leverage ratios driven by declining earnings." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

So dear Janet Yellen, if you think that asset values aren’t out of line with historical norms, balance sheets are and you can expect down the line "Extraordinary Dislocation" and very low recovery rates in the next downturn thanks to Wicksellian Differential rest assured.

"I believe in social dislocation and creative trouble." - Bayard Rustin, American leader in social movements for civil rights, socialism

Stay tuned !